3 ms·

That's actually a really good point. I argue for full time employment frequently, especially in retail. It's, imo, a terrible place to work with a lot of scummy

That's actually a really good point. I argue for full time employment frequently, especially in retail. It's, imo, a terrible place to work with a lot of scummy tactics against employees. I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though. For example, they can drop your hours to next to nothing, forcing you to leave the job rather than firing you. They can juggle your part-time days around at random making it insanely difficult to hold two part-time jobs. You make valid points about the employer/employee relationship, but even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult. My wife works in pharmacy, retail - and the things she sees from retails stores regarding employees is disgusting. The store seems straight up hostile towards it's employees. It really puts it into perspective how much better I have it, as I've worked salary for ~15 years now.

humanrebar 9y ago
> I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though. Sure. I just think the best people for that job are the workers themselves. Making less of life dependent on full time employment will give employers less leverage over employees. > ...even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult. It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another. Or you could work on a mostly commission basis for two different bosses. The challenges are typically where bosses are getting away with getting something for nothing. There is no minimum wage for "be available these hours" or "get approval before taking on another job".
- notheguyouthink 9y ago
  > It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another. Sure, but that assumes you have the power to dictate your schedule. That right there depends on some respect from employers to employees. Clearly I'm biased as I have seen disgusting things in retail. In the examples I've seen, they want you 7 days a week, regardless if they will actually pay you on those days. This is made worse by the job market that gives employers quite a bit of bargaining power. Why take the employee who only wants to work Mon/Wed/Fri, when there's someone else willing to take whatever they can get?
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    For what it's worth, I'm actually agreeing. I'm saying we've been too hung up on hourly wages and not focused enough on employers externalizing costs (business risks, logistics risks, career viability risks) on employees. Some simple things, like requiring a retainer or salary for mandatory schedule availability, have simple legislative solutions.

humanrebar 9y ago

> I'd still say employers need to be held accountable for how they treat part time workers though. Sure. I just think the best people for that job are the workers themselves. Making less of life dependent on full time employment will give employers less leverage over employees. > ...even if things like benefits were fixed, holding two or three part time jobs can be extremely difficult. It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another. Or you could work on a mostly commission basis for two different bosses. The challenges are typically where bosses are getting away with getting something for nothing. There is no minimum wage for "be available these hours" or "get approval before taking on another job".

notheguyouthink 9y ago
> It can be. But it can also be simple. You could work Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays for one boss and Saturdays for another. Sure, but that assumes you have the power to dictate your schedule. That right there depends on some respect from employers to employees. Clearly I'm biased as I have seen disgusting things in retail. In the examples I've seen, they want you 7 days a week, regardless if they will actually pay you on those days. This is made worse by the job market that gives employers quite a bit of bargaining power. Why take the employee who only wants to work Mon/Wed/Fri, when there's someone else willing to take whatever they can get?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  For what it's worth, I'm actually agreeing. I'm saying we've been too hung up on hourly wages and not focused enough on employers externalizing costs (business risks, logistics risks, career viability risks) on employees. Some simple things, like requiring a retainer or salary for mandatory schedule availability, have simple legislative solutions.